Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Anchors Away: A New Approach for Estimating Ideal Points Comparable across Time and Chambers

  • Nicole Asmussen (a1) and Jinhee Jo (a2)
Abstract

Existing methods for estimating ideal points of legislators that are comparable across time and chambers make restrictive assumptions regarding how legislators' ideal points can move over time, either by fixing some legislators' ideal points or by constraining their movement over time. These assumptions are clearly contradictory to some theories of congressional responsiveness to election dynamics and changes in constituency. Instead of using legislators as anchors, our approach relies on matching roll calls in one chamber and session with roll calls or cosponsorship decisions on identical bills introduced in a different chamber or session. By using these “bridge decisions” to achieve comparability, we can remove any assumptions about the movement of legislators' ideal points. We produce these estimates for both chambers from the 102nd (1991–92) to 111th (2009–11) Congresses, and we show that our estimates provide interesting insights into the nature of legislative behavior change.

Copyright
Corresponding author
e-mail: jinheejo@khu.ac.kr
Footnotes
Hide All

Authors' note: We thank Josh Clinton, Christian Grose, Alexander Hirsch, Michael Peress, Adam Ramey, Steve Rogers, Larry Rothenberg, Jungkun Seo, and the coeditor and the three anonymous reviewers for insightful suggestions. Replication data are available on the Political Analysis Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/4IOIWV.

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Eduardo Aleman , Ernesto Calvo , Mark P. Jones , and Noah Kaplan . 2009. Comparing cosponsorship and roll-call ideal points. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(1): 87116.

Stephen Ansolabehere , James M. Snyder Jr., and Charles Stewart III. 2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 136–59.

Michael A. Bailey 2007. Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, Congress and presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 433–48.

Michael A Bailey 2013. Is today's court the most conservative in sixty years? Challenges and opportunities in measuring judicial preferences. Journal of Politics 75(3): 821–34.

James Coleman Battista , Michael Peress , and Jesse Richman . 2013. Common-space ideal points, committee assignments, and financial interests in the state legislatures. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13(1): 7087.

William Bernhard , and Tracy Sulkin . 2013. Commitment and consequences: Reneging on cosponsorship pledges in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 38(4): 461–87.

Adam Bonica . 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 367–86.

Joshua D. Clinton , Simon Jackman , and Douglas Rivers . 2004b. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–70.

Scott W. Desposato , Matthew C. Kearney , and Brian F. Crisp 2011. Using cosponsorship to estimate ideal points. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(4): 531–65.

James Fowler . 2006. Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks. Political Analysis 14:456–87.

Andrew Gelman , and Donald B. Rubin 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7(4): 457511.

Bernard Grofman , Robert Griffin , and Gregory Berry . 1995. House members who become senators: Learning from a “natural experiment” in representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(4): 513–29.

Brian M. Harward , and Kenneth W. Moffett 2010. The calculus of cosponsorship in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(1): 117–43.

James J. Heckman , and James M. Snyder Jr. 1997. Linear probability models of the demand for attributes with an empirical application to estimating the preferences of legislators. Rand Journal of Economics 28:S14289.

John R. Hibbing 1986. Ambition in the House: Behavioral consequences of higher office goals among U.S. representatives. American Journal of Political Science 30(3): 651–65.

Daniel Kessler , and Keith Krehbiel . 1996. Dynamics of cosponsorship. American Political Science Review 90(3): 555–66.

Keith Krehbiel . 1995. Cosponsors and wafflers from A to Z. American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 906–23.

Andrew D. Martin , and Kevin M. Quinn 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134–53.

Nolan McCarty , Keith T. Poole , and Howard Rosenthal . 2001. The hunt for party discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review 95(3): 672–87.

Michael Peress . 2013. Estimating proposal and status quo locations using voting and cosponsorship data. Journal of Politics 75(3): 613–31.

Boris Shor , and Nolan McCarty . 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review 105(3): 530–51.

Jeffery C. Talbert , and Matthew Potoski . 2002. Setting the legislative agenda: The dimensional structure of bill cosponsoring and floor voting. Journal of Politics 64(3): 864–91.

Shawn Treier . 2011. Comparing ideal points across institutions and time. American Politics Research 39(5): 804–31.

Jonathan Woon . 2008. Bill sponsorship in Congress: The moderating effect of agenda positions on legislative proposals. Journal of Politics 70(1): 201–16.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
MathJax

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 22 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 66 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 4th January 2017 - 23rd July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.